# LJ. c. SHAii v. RAMASll'AMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 159
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-09-01
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSD!CfION : Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lj-c-shaii-v-ramasll-ami-and-a-n-grover-jj-j-4764
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF MYSORE
1'.
S. V. G. IYENGAR
September 1, 1969
LJ. c. SHAii, v. RAMASll'AMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
1'!ysore Ciril Serrice Rules, 1958. r. 52-0fficer stopped fronz crossing
t:Jjiciency bar-D1.H:iplinary proceedingc; droppe,I l:1t::r and nllo1vc. 1 to retir.e
-lVhet!Jer officer dee111ed to li:n·.c c11ttun1aricc1Jly cro.,·sed the !'.fficiency har
-H'hether speciul order neces.<oi':,-.
·rhc respondent \Vas v,rorking n'i an Ex·2cutivc Engineer in the Hyd~rabad
State.
In 1955, the Public Servic,~ Cn111mi~si'Jn rccomn1enJcd that : (1)
he should ·be stoppcJ fro111
crossln~ the cttich::ncy bar \Vith
cff~ct from
Februorv ~. 1952; and (2) a sum of Rs. 23,371
should be
recovered
fron1 his S<:\lary on account of loss caused to the Government by his negli~
g-.::ncc.
On Novcn1hcr 1, 1956 the Stntcs' Reorganisation Act came into
tor..:~ a;1d the respondent \vas a11ottcd to the appcllant-St:-.tc.
Even after
the respondent completed the ng·e of .55 years in 1960, he \\'rl.S continued
in service by the appellant-Stall~. hut 1111dcr s1~~pension pending: con1pletion
of the disciplinary pro~edings against hi111. but in l 961, he \\'as μcrmitted
to retire and all the disciplinary proceedings pending against hin1 \vere
dropped altogether.
After his rctircrrient. he fik:d a \\:rit petition for a
declaration that he \Vas stopped fron1 crossing the efficiency bar onl~
1 because the Goyernmcnl wanted to rcin1burse itself for the loss caused by
the rc'\pondent, that consequent upon the dropp:ng of the
proceedi;i~s
against him, he should be dcen1ed not to have caus·:d any 1os" to tile Government, and so, to hav~ crossed the l~ffi.ciency bar on Fcbru~ny 9i 1952.
and therefore. th~ incrcn1ents \Vithhckl should be rc<;torc<l and the increased
salary should· bo= taken into account in fixing his rcnsion. The High Court
allo\.ved the petition.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : Merely becau<;e the disciplinary proceedings against him were
dropped for certain reasons it did not automatically foJlov.1 that lhe res·
pendent was nllo,vcd to cross the ellicicncy bar.
Under thi Civil Service
Rules in Hyderabad and in Mysore, an express order of the appropriate
authority is necessary before an officer was allov..,ed to cross the efficiency
bar and no such order wa~ passed in the present case. [161 D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSD!CfION : Civil Appeal No. 1312 of
1966.
. -
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated
October 1, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1280 of 1961.
Niren De, Attorney-General, S. S . .Tavali and S. P. Nayar, for
the appellant.
B. R. L. lyeng~r and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF MYSORE
1'.
S. V. G. IYENGAR
September 1, 1969
LJ. c. SHAii, v. RAMASll'AMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J
1'!ysore Ciril Serrice Rules, 1958. r. 52-0fficer stopped fronz crossing
t:Jjiciency bar-D1.H:iplinary proceedingc; droppe,I l:1t::r and nllo1vc. 1 to retir.e
-lVhet!Jer officer dee111ed to li:n·.c c11ttun1aricc1Jly cro.,·sed the !'.fficiency har
-H'hether speciul order neces.<oi':,-.
·rhc respondent \Vas v,rorking n'i an Ex·2cutivc Engineer in the Hyd~rabad
State.
In 1955, the Public Servic,~ Cn111mi~si'Jn rccomn1enJcd that : (1)
he should ·be stoppcJ fro111
crossln~ the cttich::ncy bar \Vith
cff~ct from
Februorv ~. 1952; and (2) a sum of Rs. 23,371
should be
recovered
fron1 his S<:\lary on account of loss caused to the Government by his negli~
g-.::ncc.
On Novcn1hcr 1, 1956 the Stntcs' Reorganisation Act came into
tor..:~ a;1d the respondent \vas a11ottcd to the appcllant-St:-.tc.
Even after
the respondent completed the ng·e of .55 years in 1960, he \\'rl.S continued
in service by the appellant-Stall~. hut 1111dcr s1~~pension pending: con1pletion
of the disciplinary pro~edings against hi111. but in l 961, he \\'as μcrmitted
to retire and all the disciplinary proceedings pending against hin1 \vere
dropped altogether.
After his rctircrrient. he fik:d a \\:rit petition for a
declaration that he \Vas stopped fron1 crossing the efficiency bar onl~
1 because the Goyernmcnl wanted to rcin1burse itself for the loss caused by
the rc'\pondent, that consequent upon the dropp:ng of the
proceedi;i~s
against him, he should be dcen1ed not to have caus·:d any 1os" to tile Government, and so, to hav~ crossed the l~ffi.ciency bar on Fcbru~ny 9i 1952.
and therefore. th~ incrcn1ents \Vithhckl should be rc<;torc<l and the increased
salary should· bo= taken into account in fixing his rcnsion. The High Court
allo\.ved the petition.
In appeal to this Court,
HELD : Merely becau<;e the disciplinary proceedings against him were
dropped for certain reasons it did not automatically foJlov.1 that lhe res·
pendent was nllo,vcd to cross the ellicicncy bar.
Under thi Civil Service
Rules in Hyderabad and in Mysore, an express order of the appropriate
authority is necessary before an officer was allov..,ed to cross the efficiency
bar and no such order wa~ passed in the present case. [161 D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSD!CfION : Civil Appeal No. 1312 of
1966.
. -
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated
October 1, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1280 of 1961.
Niren De, Attorney-General, S. S . .Tavali and S. P. Nayar, for
the appellant.
B. R. L. lyeng~r and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J.
This appeal is brought by special leave from
the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated October 1, 1962 in
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1961 directing the appe!lant to determine the salary payable to the respondent on the basis that he had
been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in time scale of pay of
Rs. 900-50-1200-EB-75-1500 in Osmania Sikka rupees.
The
High Court also directed by the same judgment that the increments above the efficiency bar be withheld by the appe!lant should
now be paid to him and the salary sc determined should be taken
into account for determining the amount of pension payable to
the respondent in accordance with the relevant rules.
The responde,nt was working as an Executive Engineer in the
Public Works Department of the Hyderabad State and was in
charge of certain project works during the period June 1949 to
September 1950. On the basis of some information the explanation of the respondent was ca!led for in respect of certain a!leged
irregularities in the execution of certain project works.
The
respondent sent in his explanations dated June 14,
195 l and
December 10, 1951 to the Superintending Engineer, Munirabad.
In October 1953 the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that
some loss had been caused in respect of four projects more due
to lack of foresight and organising capacity on the part of
the
respondent than to any intentional misappropriation and a show
cause notice was issued on March 11, 1955 asking the respondent to show cause why he should not be stopped from crossing
the efficiency bar with effect from February 9, 1952 and why a
sum of Rs. 23,371/- should not be recovered from his salary on
account of the loss caused to the Government by the respondent's
negligence.
After the respondent had shown cause the matter
was sent by the Government to the Public Service Commission.
The Public Service Commission recommended that in addition to
stopping the respondent at the efficiency bar for the period 1952
to 1957 as recommended by the Government, the pecuniary loss
caused to the Government should be recovered from the respondent.
On November 1, 1956 the States' Reorganisation came
;nto force and the services of the respondent stood transferred .to
the State of Mysore. By its order dated October 14, 1958 the
Mysore Government directed that the respondent should be retired
compulsorily from service and should also be asked to make good
sum of Rs. 4,576/- being the amount of loss cansed to Government iu the above connection.
The respondent challenged this
order by a writ petition on the ground that the Enquiry Officer
at Hyderabad had exonerated him of all the ·charges excepting
one and also because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not
furnished to the respondent. The High Court of Mysore a!lowed
the writ petition and quashed the order of the Government.
Thereafter the Mysore Government took further steps in the
matter and the respondent presented several other writ petitions
in the Mysore High Court impunging the subsequent action of the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MYSORE STATE v. s. V.G. IYENGAR (Ramaswami, !.)
161
Mysore Government. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the
purpose of the present appeal to set out the orders of the Mysore
Government and the writ petitions filed by the respondent and
the Orders made by the High Court except to >tale that by an
order made on December 10, 1960 he respondent who was to
have retired with effect from Octob.er 27,
1960, the date on
which he completed the age of 55 years was continued in service but under suspension pending completion of the disciplinary
proceedings against him and that the Government by a subsequent
order dated May 19, 1961 revoked th~ previous order of December 10, 1960 and permitted the respondent to retire dropping altogether the
disciplinary
proceedings
against him.
After his
retirement the respondent filed writ petition No. 1280 of J.961
praying for declaration that he should be regarded as having
crossed the efficiency bar in his pay scale on February 9, 1952
and that he should be given all the increments after the efficiency
bar in the pay scale of an Executive Engineer and that he should
be paid the difference and his pension should be fixed on the
basis of enhanced salary claimed by him.
The claim '.)f the respondent was resisted by the Mysore State on the ground that
under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules a specific order
ought to be made p.ermitting the respondent to cross the effid;lncy
bar. The High Court rejected the contention of the appeJlant and
held that consequent upon the dropping of the proceeding against
the respondent the increment withheld by way of penalty should
be restored and the increased salary should be taken into account
in fixing the amount of pension payable to the respondent.
Rule 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, 1952 reads
as follows:
"Where an efficiency bar is
prescribed ~n a time
scale the increment next above the bar shall not be given
to -a Government servant without the specific sanction
of the authority empowered to withhold increments."
Rule 52 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, 1958 is in the same
language as r. 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules.
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the withholding of the inc,rement of the respondent at the efficiency bar
was in<ended to operate as a penalty for alleged misconduct.
It was said that upon the facts of the case the only conclusion possible was that the Government wanted to stop the respondent at
the efficiency bar in the time scale with a view to reimburse itself
at the expense of the respondent the loss said to have been caused
by him to the Government. It was, therefore, argued that 'after
th.e dropping of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent
without recorciing any finding of guilt no penalty could be imposed.
It was contended that once the Government had taken the jlecision
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 2 S.C.R.
to stop the respondent at the efficiency bar by way of penalty it
must be held that the Government had waived their right to stop
the respondent at the efficiency bar for administrative reasons
\ll'ider r. 3 8. In our opinion there is no warrant for the contentions
advanced on behalf of the responde,nt. It is manifest that in view
of the language of r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules and r. 52 of the
Mysore Rules be.fore the respondent could claim payment of increments next above the bar, it is necessary that the Government
should make a special o:der sanctioning such payment. It is true
that disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were dropped
but the res11lt claimed by the respondent cannot automatically
follow a result of the droppin 2 of the disciplinary proceedings.
In this connection the Attorney General pointed out that the notice
dated March 16, 1955 against the respondent asked him to show
cause why : ( l ) he should not be stopped from crossi!lp, the P.fficiency bar and (2) why n sum of Rs. 23.371-14-2 should not be
1·ecovered from him on account of loss caused to the Government
by his negligence. The stoppage nt efficie,ncy bar had no connec·
tion with the recovery of loss sustained by the Government and it
c:11111ot, therefore, be said thnt the Government walltcd to impose
the cflkier.cy, bar became it wanted to reimburse itself for
the
loss caused by the respondent. So far as the language of r. 38 is
concerned it is manifi:st that an express order of the appropriat~
-authority is necessary before the respondent is allowed to cross the
efficiency bar. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the respondent that the Govecrunent must be deemed to
have given specific sanction under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules
permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar merely be·
cause disciplinary proceedings against him had been dropped for
certain reasons.
In the High Court the case was argued by both the parties on
the assumption that r. 38 applied to the case of the respondent.
During the hearin)! of the appeal in this Court it was stated by
Mr. Iyengar that when the respondent became due for crossing the
efficiency bar r. 38 as it stands at present was not in operation.
But it was said that a rule similar to r. 38 was in operation at the
relevant time.
For these reasons we held that this appeal should be alJowed
and the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated October 1, 1962
should be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent
sJJould be ordered to be oismissed.
There will be no order with regard to costs in this appeal
V.P.S.
Appeal a/loll'ed.
A
B
c
E
G
H